Since I’m the author of the article I also have it posted on my substack page.,
YES, there IS a connection. And it needs to be looked at closely.
If you to comment on the actual POST go here:
Lew Rockwell has no comment section.
Hmmm. I see you get your mass shooting statistics using the same tactics and info just like Everytown, Gifford’s, and other Gun Control advocates do.
I think that adding gun on gun gang violence and drive by shootings to the political discourse surrounding “Mass Shootings” is an intellectually dishonest tactics. It adds a sense of false urgency, to an already existing emotional turmoil by those who do not know that the statistics are being manipulated. A difference in approach, individually, is needed to discuss both ideas.
No matter what discussion or decisions are made, no one can legislate criminality away.
(RAWR Dinosaurs)
The point is the SSRI connection to the “mass shootings” which apparently you’re managing to ignore. HOW I got the statistics is by using available data. Have you read Medication Madness by Dr. Peter Breggan? No? I’m surprised. You’re like so many other respondents on here. Quick to comment with no reason behind the comment. You apparently DID NOT READ THE ARTICLE. I’m shocked.
I can name a few politicians
Not sure if this comment is for me or not. But, yes I have read the methodology behind the statistics that were used in gathering the data. They included mass shootings data from gang related shootings. Just like I am sure the bank robbery in Louisville, Kentucky (just a few hours ago), will be thrown in as well. It’s trying to emotionally appeal to the repugnance we all feel for mass casualty events that transpire in a school, while trying to make the incidence of those events appear to correlate and occur more frequently than they do.
Trying to establish corrolary connections between any two data points, using any statistics is intellectually dishonest. Statistics are easily manipulated. So trying to use flawed information gathering techniques from one point to prove another hypothesis Is. Intellectually. Dishonest.
What’s so hard to understand? It’s not rocket science.
You may have read SOMETHING else, but you sure didn’t read Dr. Breggin’s book nor my post. It is OBVIOUS because you are so far off subject.
Using an expanded data set such as the “Mass Shooting” data set that is the in the article and allegedly being used by you are inflated. Which gives more opportunities for the causal connection that you are citing and that are being given.
G.I.G.O
Using a data set I choose, I can say that Sting Ray attacks are 100% fatal, and for a very brief moment in time at Batt Reef, Australia on 9/4/06. But it was true for that exact moment in time when Steve Irwin died from a stingray spine to the chest.
We all know that is a bad data set. Use a data set that can be agreed upon by all sides. Or at least that’s how it works for academic research. There have been a couple of academically peer reviewed studies That would do wonders towards your conclusion of drawing a link between STI, Medication, and their relationship to criminal violence.
Edit: poor sentence break usage.
“We all know”? Really? I’m done “debating” your ignorance on the subject. You OBVIOUSLY didn’t read the post. You didn’t check the links, you never read Medication Madness, so for all intents I’m debating a post. BYE!
We all know that me extrapolating that Sting Ray attacks are lethal based off of Steve Irwin’s death is a bad data set.
Sheesh.
But you trying to defend a bad usage of statistics is flawed. I read your post, I read your link, I am not going to read a book. You are correct in that. You are using a flawed data set and drawing false correlations from that
When you throw additional data points into a statistical analysis you can draw any conclusion you desire.
